CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[Syriusly]

Here is what 1 American Muslim wanted
Trump's America Wouldn't Have Welcomed This Muslim Military Hero

I came to the United States in 1999 from Pakistan and my first thought was, “How can I serve this great country?” In 2000, as many migrants to this country have done, I joined the United States military. I served in the U.S Army’s 1st Cavalry Division and in the Army’s elite Special Forces.


When I was deployed into harm’s way and my family remained stateside, I was diligent to honor the flag and American values, to preserve our way of life and our constitutional freedoms. America’s enemies were my enemies, and still are.


My jihad (struggle) was to stand up for my faith and the citizens of this great nation.

I am personally offended by those who attempt to further their personal or political agenda by mischaracterizing my religion.


My name is Hanif Sangi, and I am an American, an immigrant, a Muslim, a U.S Army veteran who served in combat, and a recipient of the Bronze Star for heroism.

 

[Coyote]

So...kosher should be illegal?

I don't think you know much about Jewish religious law or Sharia.

You seem to be confusing Kosher food with Halakha (Jewish religious law).

Kosher dietary rules IS part of Halakha.

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

 

[Coyote]

Remember- in the United States, American law covers everyone.

People can mutually agree to follow Halakah or Sharia in their private dealings. If American women consensually agree to follow Sharia law with each other- who are you to tell them how they can practice their religion?

If American Muslim women agree to be governed by sharia then they must be suffering from some form of Stockholm Syndrome, and need our help even more.

Feel free to offer your "help".

Unless you can prove that they are mentally incapacitated, you are just demanding that you have the right to abrogate their First Amendment rights.

So she has a First Amendment right to be brainwashed without anyone coming to her help? Ummm... no. That's not how it works. As for proving it, take any woman who agrees to be governed by sharia, there's your proof.

How would you reconcile our nation's core belief in freedom of religion with your views here?

Freedom of religion is not absolute. As an example, I can't just rape someone and claim to be free of prosecution because I declare myself a Muslim and there weren't 4 witnessed to the rape. So the complaining woman should be stoned to death for adultery.

Of course freedom of religion is not absolute and I absolutely agree with your example, however, that is not how religious laws are utilized in this country.

 

[Coyote]

...so long as they don't violate American law or harm others.

Sharia violates US laws in too many ways to enumerate right here.

Sharia is an entire code of rules for living, civil matters along with a penal code. In that sense it's no different than Halakah, or Catholic religious law used in arbritration. What you and others seem to miss is that not all Muslims follow the entire package, just like not all Jews follow the entire package - what is followed is what is line with US law, or whatever the law of the country is. In any western country that allows religious arbritration - it applies ONLY to civil matters - not criminal. Divorce, marriage, contracts - and it's voluntary. It also can go against existing laws. It's a reasonable avenue for religious people who want to resolve things within their faith.

I simply disagree, sharia law is totally unfair to women and should be disallowed everywhere possible. As for the other religions, go start a thread, you keep trying to derail this one. Who do I report YOU to? .

As for this "It also can go against existing laws", you must be nuts.

Sorry dude, it's pertinant to this thread since we're talking about the application of religious laws in the American

And that was a typo on my part - I mean't "can't" - it can not go against existing secular laws.

 

[Coyote]

...so long as they don't violate American law or harm others.

Sharia violates US laws in too many ways to enumerate right here.

Sharia is an entire code of rules for living, civil matters along with a penal code. In that sense it's no different than Halakah, or Catholic religious law used in arbritration. What you and others seem to miss is that not all Muslims follow the entire package, just like not all Jews follow the entire package - what is followed is what is line with US law, or whatever the law of the country is. In any western country that allows religious arbritration - it applies ONLY to civil matters - not criminal. Divorce, marriage, contracts - and it's voluntary. It also can go against existing laws. It's a reasonable avenue for religious people who want to resolve things within their faith.

I simply disagree, sharia law is totally unfair to women and should be disallowed everywhere possible. As for the other religions, go start a thread, you keep trying to derail this one. Who do I report YOU to? .

As for this "It also can go against existing laws", you must be nuts.

You simply disagree with the First Amendment? Oh, well, then.

So you'd let Muslim women be stoned to death in the US for some bullshit reason?

No one would. None of this applies to criminal law mor does it overide secular law. If it did, we'd be in a shitload of trouble because the Bible extorts us to stone adulterers and the Halakah punishment for adulters is also stoning. None of that of course is legal in this country nor do most religious people in this country desire it.

 

[saveliberty]

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

It could be akin to the classic speed trap in the rural town, where the justice of the peace and sheriff are in league against the poor out of town speeder. A woman under Sharia Law just seems to be a bad idea.

 

[saveliberty]

No one would. None of this applies to criminal law mor does it overide secular law. If it did, we'd be in a shitload of trouble because the Bible extorts us to stone adulterers and the Halakah punishment for adulters is also stoning. None of that of course is legal in this country nor do most religious people in this country desire it.

You have to admit it would cut down on adultery a lot.

 

[Coyote]

Kosher dietary rules IS part of Halakha.

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Ridiculous to you- since you have made it clear that when you say that Americans can't follow 'foreign religious law' what you really mean is you want to prevent American Muslims from practising Sharia law in private, between themselves, when it does not violate U.S. law.

You are okay with every other religion doing so.

I did not state that, you made it up,
.

Quoting you:
Yes, I have a problem with Moslem Men living by Sharia Law in their private life.

There can be only one law in the USA, that of the Constitution.

When we pointed out that many Americans live their lives following religious law, including Kosher laws- you indicated that was okay- because "The Constitution was based upon the Bible"

Yes- you do have a problem.

Again, no, that is not what I stated.

So you do not have an example of Moslem Men resolving civil matters with Sharia Law?

How about telling us an example other than food how Moslems live by Sharia law.

Applying God’s Law: Religious Courts and Mediation in the U.S.

Islamic law, or sharia, is the code of religious belief and conduct that governs many aspects of Muslim life. It covers a broad range of areas, including crime and punishment; marriage, divorce and inheritance; banking and contractual relations; and diet and attire. Some elements of sharia, especially concerning worship and other religious practices, are clearly outlined in the Quran, the Islamic holy book, while other questions are settled according to different clerics’ interpretations of general sharia principles.


The purpose of sharia is to allow Muslims to live their earthly lives according to Allah’s wishes, according to Sheik Abdool Rahman Khan, an expert on sharia law and chairman of the Shariah Council of the Islamic Circle of North America, a Muslim education and advocacy group in New York City: “We believe that if we do not do things properly in this world, then we will have consequences in the hereafter.”


Disputes Between Individuals


Sharia sometimes plays an important role in helping Muslims resolve disputes, particularly domestic ones. Indeed, the most common disputes involving sharia, at least in the United States, probably concern issues surrounding the dissolution of a marriage, such as asset allocation or child custody, says Lee Ann Bambach, an attorney who is completing a Ph.D. in religious studies at Emory University in Atlanta. Inheritance and contract dispute cases also occasionally come up, she says.


In many Muslim countries, marital and other disputes often come before sharia courts, where a judge sometimes renders a decision after hearing only from the two parties involved, without other evidence or witnesses. In the United States, there are no sharia courts operating at this time, Bambach and other experts say. However, a number of Muslim imams offer voluntary dispute-resolution services to American Muslims based on principles of Islamic religious law.


For example, Imam Talal Eid runs the Islamic Institute of Boston, an organization that handles religious divorces, inheritance disputes and child-custody cases for Muslims across the United States. Most of his cases center on divorces, often involving women trying to obtain an Islamic divorce from an uncooperative husband. “I investigate, and if the wife’s claims are legitimate, I will talk to the husband and try to convince him. If the husband continues to refuse to grant a [religious] divorce, I grant her one,” he says. Eid does not call his institute a sharia court, but he does liken its work to that of a Jewish beit din, or rabbinical court (see below).


According to Bambach, many U.S. Muslims take marital and other problems to local imams and ask them to use sharia principles to resolve the disputes. But because there is no single credentialing organization or centralized hierarchy for American imams, there also are no standard procedures for dispute resolution, she says.


Abed Awad, an attorney in Hasbrouck Heights, N.J., who is an expert on sharia, says the ground rules for dispute resolution are often set by the imam and other participants in an ad hoc manner at the beginning of each case. “These things tend to spring up as the need arises,” he says.


According to Khan, at the Islamic Circle of North America the resolution of each case also must be in line with secular American law and procedure. For instance, he says, “I let people know that I cannot issue a [religious] divorce decree unless a court has given them a [civil] divorce document first.”


Eid follows the same procedure. “Today you have to mix modern and Islamic law,” he says.
​

How Muslim men live by Sharia depends very much on their culture.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know

 

[elektra]

So...kosher should be illegal?

I don't think you know much about Jewish religious law or Sharia.

You seem to be confusing Kosher food with Halakha (Jewish religious law).

Kosher dietary rules IS part of Halakha.

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

Great, I get it, instead of simply stating what you know, you play this word game, then denigrate me, insult me, and state that I have a problem, based on eating Kosher food.

But the post and comment was made, do I have a problem of people living under Sharia law in the USA, specifically would I have a problem with people resolving civil differences under sharia law.

You are doing an excellent job avoiding what you stated.

Are you going to provide an example of Moslems resolving civil matters under sharia law or will continue to obfuscate the topic you brought up.

 

[Syriusly]

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

It could be akin to the classic speed trap in the rural town, where the justice of the peace and sheriff are in league against the poor out of town speeder. A woman under Sharia Law just seems to be a bad idea.

You telling a woman that she cannot choose to live her life according to Sharia principles, as long as she doesn't break American law, just seems like a very bad idea.

 

[Coyote]

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

It could be akin to the classic speed trap in the rural town, where the justice of the peace and sheriff are in league against the poor out of town speeder. A woman under Sharia Law just seems to be a bad idea.

Sharia councils handle divorces and marriages...
Divorce in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islamic marital jurisprudence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halakah handles divorces and marriages in a similar way...
Divorce in Judaism

All of which potentially - in the hands of an unfeeling rabbi/imam/council could be hard on a woman. However - they only cover a religious divorce - a secular divorce is still required.

The irony is that in civil matters there isn't a lot of difference between Sharia and Halakah but Sharia is uniquely singled out despite the fact that in none of those cases can it go against secular law.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know
First, Shariah is a personal relationship between a Muslim and God. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion—particularly private exercise. Second, if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam’s guidelines. If similar restrictions were imposed for other faith groups, then no Minister could conduct a marriage ceremony, no Catholic Bishop could read the last rites and no Rabbi could perform circumcision on an infant male Jewish child—because these are all Judeo-Christian religious laws. Even within our current legal system, American Jews regularly resolve civil matters through rabbinical courts known as beit din. American Muslims simply want to enjoy their same constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[Syriusly]

No one would. None of this applies to criminal law mor does it overide secular law. If it did, we'd be in a shitload of trouble because the Bible extorts us to stone adulterers and the Halakah punishment for adulters is also stoning. None of that of course is legal in this country nor do most religious people in this country desire it.

You have to admit it would cut down on adultery a lot.

Yep- and stoning jaywalkers would reduce jaywalking too.......

 

[Coyote]

No one would. None of this applies to criminal law mor does it overide secular law. If it did, we'd be in a shitload of trouble because the Bible extorts us to stone adulterers and the Halakah punishment for adulters is also stoning. None of that of course is legal in this country nor do most religious people in this country desire it.

You have to admit it would cut down on adultery a lot.

there is that...

 

[Syriusly]

So...kosher should be illegal?

I don't think you know much about Jewish religious law or Sharia.

You seem to be confusing Kosher food with Halakha (Jewish religious law).

Kosher dietary rules IS part of Halakha.

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

Great, I get it, instead of simply stating what you know, you play this word game, then denigrate me, insult me, and state that I have a problem, based on eating Kosher food.

But the post and comment was made, do I have a problem of people living under Sharia law in the USA, specifically would I have a problem with people resolving civil differences under sharia law..

And your answer was- yes you would.

 

[Coyote]

So...kosher should be illegal?

I don't think you know much about Jewish religious law or Sharia.

You seem to be confusing Kosher food with Halakha (Jewish religious law).

Kosher dietary rules IS part of Halakha.

And to bring them into this OP, as a point to be made, is simply ridiculous.

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

Great, I get it, instead of simply stating what you know, you play this word game, then denigrate me, insult me, and state that I have a problem, based on eating Kosher food.

I wasn't playing any word games - I was pretty direct. You were making claims that were inaccurate.

But the post and comment was made, do I have a problem of people living under Sharia law in the USA, specifically would I have a problem with people resolving civil differences under sharia law.

You are doing an excellent job avoiding what you stated.

Are you ginog to provide an example of Moslems resolving civil matters under sharia law or will continue to obfuscate the topic you brought up.

I did provide - not specific examples of specific people (did you want that?) - but examples of how it IS applied.

 

[Syriusly]

Not at all. It makes a point that you, and those who support you prefer to ignore and that is that western countries have long allowed the use of private religious councils for arbritation and to resolve civil matters. It makes the point that there is little difference between Halakha and Sharia in this context. Most of Sharia, like Halakah is really involved with codes of conduct (like keeping kosher or halal) and conducting civil affairs. The popular assumption is Sharia is nothing more than it's penal code is wrong and that is part of the problem with these arguments. As long as it doesn't violate secular law or constitution I could care less if people voluntarily use it, or Halakah, or the Catholic laws, as a means to settle civil matters. We are a free country.

It could be akin to the classic speed trap in the rural town, where the justice of the peace and sheriff are in league against the poor out of town speeder. A woman under Sharia Law just seems to be a bad idea.

Sharia councils handle divorces and marriages...
Divorce in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Islamic marital jurisprudence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Halakah handles divorces and marriages in a similar way...
Divorce in Judaism

All of which potentially - in the hands of an unfeeling rabbi/imam/council could be hard on a woman. However - they only cover a religious divorce - a secular divorce is still required.

The irony is that in civil matters there isn't a lot of difference between Sharia and Halakah but Sharia is uniquely singled out despite the fact that in none of those cases can it go against secular law.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know
First, Shariah is a personal relationship between a Muslim and God. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion—particularly private exercise. Second, if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam’s guidelines. If similar restrictions were imposed for other faith groups, then no Minister could conduct a marriage ceremony, no Catholic Bishop could read the last rites and no Rabbi could perform circumcision on an infant male Jewish child—because these are all Judeo-Christian religious laws. Even within our current legal system, American Jews regularly resolve civil matters through rabbinical courts known as beit din. American Muslims simply want to enjoy their same constitutionally guaranteed right.

I will point out that the Catholic church does not recognize civil divorce, and does not permit divorce.

But they do allow for annulment according to Church law- another example of Americans utilizing a 'foreign religious law' in the United States.

 

[Arianrhod]

But the post and comment was made, do I have a problem of people living under Sharia law in the USA.

Apparently you do, unless someone else made that post that's been cited several times.

I will point out that the Catholic church does not recognize civil divorce, and does not permit divorce.

But they do allow for annulment according to Church law- another example of Americans utilizing a 'foreign religious law' in the United States.

It should also be pointed out that the resurgence of the Klan in the 1920s was in part due to anti-Catholic rhetoric. And when JFK was running in 1960, a lot of "real Americans" were spreading hate based on the unfounded claim that "any Catholic President would answer to the Pope before he answered to the Constitution."

 

[saveliberty]

I do not think it is as straightforward as you would like us to believe coyote.

Muslim divorce settlements in non-Muslim countries

For example, let’s review this real life divorce case of a Muslim couple – A US court ruled in favor of the husband that his ex-wife be granted only the Mahr (a few hundred dollars) that was agreed to at their marriage in their home country precluding her from any portion of her husband’s property and wealth in the US.

In a foreign country with $200 - $500 to your name.

 

[Coyote]

I do not think it is as straightforward as you would like us to believe coyote.

Muslim divorce settlements in non-Muslim countries

For example, let’s review this real life divorce case of a Muslim couple – A US court ruled in favor of the husband that his ex-wife be granted only the Mahr (a few hundred dollars) that was agreed to at their marriage in their home country precluding her from any portion of her husband’s property and wealth in the US.

In a foreign country with $200 - $500 to your name.

Good article. Agree, it's complicated.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm going to start by posting a post I posted in a thread now closed, because it provides the info I need for this thread.

Do American Muslims want Sharia to be the "law of the land"?

Here's some of Pew's poll on American Muslims: Section 5: Political Opinions and Social Values

None of the questions specifically ask about Sharia, however - there are a number of questions that ask about their views on topics that can be connected to Sharia (for example women's roles, homosexuality etc.):

Muslim Americans hold more conservative views than the general public about gays and lesbians. However, they have become more accepting of homosexuality since 2007.

Today, Muslim Americans are more divided on this question: 39% say homosexuality should be accepted, while 45% say it should be discouraged. Four years ago, far more said homosexuality should be discouraged (61%) than accepted (27%).


The broader public has become more accepting of homosexuality as well. Currently, 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, while 33% say it should be discouraged. In 2006, about half (51%) said homosexuality should be accepted, while 38% said it should be discouraged.


The changes since 2007 are evident across most demographic groups of Muslim Americans. One exception, though, is older Muslim Americans. Four years ago, 22% of this group said homosexuality should be accepted. Today, 21% say this. The next oldest age group – those 40 to 54 – are almost evenly divided (43% say homosexuality should be accepted; 47% say it should be discouraged). Four years ago, 69% of this group said homosexuality should be discouraged.


Acceptance of homosexuality has risen significantly among those with high levels of religious commitment (from 16% in 2007 to 30% today) as well as those with medium levels of religious commitment (from 21% in 2007 to 37% today). However, those who express a low level of religious commitment continue to be more accepting (57%) than those with a high religious commitment (30%). Four years ago, 47% of those with low religious commitment said homosexuality should be accepted, compared with 16% among those who express a high commitment.


Whether Muslim Americans were born in the U.S. or immigrated here seems to make little difference in views toward homosexuality. Currently, 41% of the native born say homosexuality should be accepted, about the same as the 38% of foreign born who say this. In both cases, the numbers are up since 2007 (30% among the native born, 26% among the foreign born).

Though overall Islam remains more conservative on this issue, it reflects the same trends as the general population over all, and the gap isn't huge and is closing. Compare this with countries, like Egypt or Afghanistan where there is a strong belief in that Sharia should be law of the land and a high intolerance for homosexuality.

The second area where adherence to a strict model of Sharia exerts an influence that is antithetical to western values is in the role of women, and here again we see distinct differences between Muslims in America and Muslims in the Middle East.

Nearly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (68%) say gender makes no difference in the quality of political leaders. Still, about a quarter (27%) say men make better political leaders. Very few (4%) say women make better leaders. There are only slight differences in views on this between men and women and among various age groups.

Among the U.S. public, 72% say gender does not determine who will be the better political leader. About one-in-ten each say men (12%) or women (13%) make better leaders.
On women working outside the home:
Muslim Americans show strong support for allowing women to join the workforce. Nine-in-ten either completely (72%) or mostly agree (18%) that women should be able to work outside the home. Among the U.S. general public, almost all either completely (81%) or mostly (16%) agree with this.

Attitudes among Muslim Americans are similar to attitudes among Muslims in Lebanon and Turkey. But support for women working outside the home is considerably smaller in many other Muslim nations. For example, in Egypt, only about six-in-ten say they either completely agree (23%) or mostly agree (39%) that women should be allowed to work outside the home. About four-in-ten (39%) disagree.


A few other takeaways from the poll:

• Support for Islamic extremism is negligable.

• Muslim Americans are religious, but not dogmatic (Many Muslim Americans are highly religious: 69% say that religion is very important in their lives; 70% of Christians say that religion is very important in their lives)

Overwhelming numbers of Muslim Americans believe in Allah (96%), the Prophet Muhammad (96%) and the Day of Judgment (92%). Yet the survey finds that most reject a dogmatic approach to religion. Most Muslim Americans (57%) say there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Islam; far fewer (37%) say that there is only one true interpretation of Islam. Similarly, 56% of Muslim Americans say that many different religions can lead to eternal life; just 35% say that Islam is the one true faith that leads to eternal life.

In this respect, Muslim Americans differ from many of their counterparts in the Muslim world and are similar to U.S. Christians. In the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 28% of Christians said that there was only one way to interpret the teachings of their religion.

• On wearing a hijab:

About a third of Muslim American women (36%) report always wearing the headcover or hijab whenever they are out in public, and an additional 24% say they wear the hijab most or some of the time. Four-in-ten (40%) say they never wear the headcover.

• On assimilation:

A majority of Muslim Americans (56%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt American customs and ways of life. Far fewer (20%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. want to be distinct from the larger American society, with a similar number (16%) volunteering that Muslim immigrants want to do both. Native-born and foreign-born Muslims give similar answers to this question.

More than six-in-ten American Muslims (63%) see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, twice the number who do see such a conflict (31%). A 2006 Pew Research survey found a nearly identical pattern among American Christians who were asked about a possible conflict between modernity and their own faith. Nearly two-thirds of Christians (64%) said there is no conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society, compared with 31% who did perceive a conflict.


When ask, who you are:

When you look at all this, as one big picture - two things stand out. There isn't a huge difference between American Muslims and American Christians (ie - the mainstream majority in the US).

The second thing is - it's impossible to reconcile these views with a desire to have Sharia be the law of the land by even a significant minority much less a majority.

Saying there's little difference between Christians and Muslims is delusional at best. Case in point is the difference between what defines being a good Muslim and what defines being a good Christian. There in lies the difference.

Yet, a comprehensive poll of American Muslims and Christians says exactly that.

What is a good Muslim?

Yet the New Testament and Koran are totally different. You seem to want lump Christians and Jews together. To a Christian, the Old Testament is a historical document that spells out the genealogy of Jesus Christ. Christianity doesn't believe in much of anything a Muslim does, especially when it comes to ownership of women and treatment of infidels. Not to mention much of Islamic teachings are different depending on which religious sect you follow. They have several other writings not in the Koran, but in the Hadith.